Articles Tagged with fruit of the poisonous tree

TL;DR Quick Take: North Carolina v. Rogers could prove to be one of the most consequential constitutional rulings in North Carolina criminal A senior North Carolina judge sits in a historic courtroom, wearing a black judicial robe and gazing forward with a thoughtful, serious expression. Sunlight filters through tall arched windows, reflecting the dignity and gravity of constitutional decision-making in North Carolina’s courts law in decades. The opinion not only interprets N.C.G.S. § 15A-974 but also redefines how North Carolina courts understand the relationship between the Fourth Amendment and Article I, Section 20 of the North Carolina State Constitution.

As applied, the Good Faith Exception articulated in State v. Rogers reverses longstanding precedent set forth in North Carolina v. Carter

The burden quietly shifts to the accused to demonstrate unreasonableness, reversing long-standing Due Process protections and draining both the fruit and the fiber from the “poisonous tree.”

The exclusionary rule is a foundational principle in American criminal law. While it traces its origins to federal constitutional doctrine, it now plays a central role in everyday trial practice, including in state courtrooms across North Carolina. The rule is most often encountered through motions to suppress evidence, but its reach extends further, sometimes forming the basis for a motion to dismiss when the taint of unlawful police conduct affects more than a single piece of evidence. To understand why the rule exists and how it functions, it helps to examine both its historical roots and its practical application today.

Though courts often describe the exclusionary rule as a remedy, its function is broader than that. It reflects an institutional decision to draw a line between the conduct of law enforcement and the integrity of the courts. It limits what the State may use to prosecute someone when a constitutional violation has occurred. And while it can lead to the suppression of important or even decisive evidence, the logic behind the rule rests on the idea that constitutional limits on police conduct are only meaningful if they carry enforceable consequences.

The Exclusionary Rule in Constitutional and Historical Context

Contact Information